It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Was there ever really a Louisiana Purchase?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 01:08 AM
New developments in Paris, Fr. have finally blown a nearly two hundred year old conspiracy wide open. Pres. Jefferson supposedly bought Louisiana from Napoleon, who as chief Consul of the First Republic, negotiated with Livingstone, Madison, et. al.. But was it just a bribe?
When the Bonapartes were defeated, all their treaties were declared worthless, as Napoleon stood accused of usurping the French Throne. Not finding Louis Charles, alive, they set up the Duke of Anjou, who called himself Louis XVIII, in deference to the rightful heir, the Duke of Normandy. What has happened with the DNA fingerprinting back in 2004, was to somewhat prove descent from a female relative of Marie Antoinette, down to the pickled heart, taken from the autopsy in 1795. However, DNA or no DNA, the leg bones were also judged way too long for any ten year old's. I guessed that there was a living twin brother of the older deceased brother of the Duke of Normandy, who was smuggled into the jail cell, in his last months of failing health, before he died. This was done so he could at least be buried as King Louis VII. And, finally, he has been! The DNA along with the leg bones shows this to be true. But the revolutionaries, would never have let Louis Charles, out of their grasp. A perfectly healthy ten year old prince was smuggled out of his jail cell in 1795, and if he survived past 1815, when James Monroe got the Duke of Anjou to sign off on the earlier treaty, saving his now, Pres. Madison's, reputation. This could have been as big a fraud as the first treaty signing with Napoleon. Look at this one from the perspective of Charles Dickens, in "A Tale of Two Cities". " I'm doing a far, far, better thing, than I have ever done, and I am going to a far, far, better place than I have ever been". Dickens posits a wino sacrificing himself to spring a lady friend's lover, but was this the real Nineteenth Century "Gotcha", by the Brits? So the real Louis XVII, was born the same day as Louis Joseph, as his weaker twin brother, and died on the day mentioned in the 1795 autopsy. We don't know his Christian name, but we've got everything else. So the rightful Prince is buried, sort of, in the correct niche, at St. Denis, that now holds his pickled heart. But even now, is the Louisiana Purchase on life support? If the specimen mitochondrial DNA of the Pickled heart matches a burial from any later than 1815, when the Duke of Normandy, was 30 years old, Anjou couldn't have signed away his King's patrimony. Edgar Cayce claimed that this child grew up and lived a long time, in a forensic reading he did while in a trance. Does this presage the creation of some kind of Regency, here, West of the Mississippi, in territory that we promised in 1790, to honor the French Monarchy's perogotives, in perpetuity, in the Treaty of Paris of 1790, that created our sovereign American People. We've all heard of the 'Birthers', & Tea Baggers, but what about the 'founders', relating back to our 'Great Founding Treaty' of the American People?? This treaty obligation to King Louis XVI's court predates the U.S. Constitution of 1792, and is still International Law. The trigger will be when, finally now understanding the true nature of this conspiracy, we ferret out what happened to one ten year old, 215 years ago. Every clod of dirt, from the Mississippi to the Pacific would be subject to the historical fact that the Kings of France and Spain were always referred to as "Their most Catholic Majesties". Seems to me that trumps our judiciary's total separation of Church and State, and this is just for starters. This land mass will make a vibrant Duchy, with these several States morphing into fewer, larger. Provinces, having the ability to bite back at the Feds, now penned up, in their Treaty Territory, East of the Mississippi frontier. This puts a brand new meaning to "the pen is mightier--". Think of the surviving U.S. Gov't as Little Old America". Carpooler.

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by carpooler

I'm not even going to read that unless you break it up into paragraphs.

Anyway, if you're proposing that the entirety of the Midwest still belongs to France, I bet there's a ton of people living on the east and west coast who'd be willing to give it back.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 11:50 AM
Sorry about being so verbose. No, I never meant to say the Fifth Republic of France has any claim whatsoever. It would only be from a legal descendant of Louis Charles, sort of a reverse Cinderella Story, who would have to be treated by the U.S. Courts as something like a Soverign Domestic Duke, the same way tribes of Indians, continue exercising treaty rights to hunt and fish, seperate from Regulation by the States in which they reside. I put this into the skunk work forum, as the only place you'll read some of this is the French Monarchist school of Nostradamus Interpreters, such as Jean Charles de Fontbrune's works. This esoteric school calculates that a cataclyism will erupt and doom all the great Republics at the end of a two hundred year cycle of republics, and then a world wide monarchy will arise to save Europe from a new Islamic invasion. So the DNA fingerprint in Paris, is an interesting harbinger, IMHO.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 03:27 PM
reply to post by carpooler

There was no lawful sale:

"A man goes to my neighbor, and says, 'sell me Joseph's horse'.

I see the man on my horse, and say, 'what are you doing on my horse?'

He says, 'your neighbor sold it to me'.

We did not sell our land, unless it was by this kind of theft."

Chief Joseph

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 04:17 PM
You have done some interesting research, however it's important to consider that the Bourbon Kings were not considered legitimate by the Holy Roman Empire or the British Monarch who considered himself to be the true King of France as well as England.

In the Treaty of Paris, the English Monarch's title includes that as King of France, with the Bourbon King only listed as a Creditor to the Colonialists.

The recognition of Title to the Land belonging to the Bourbon King had more to do with the fact that as a creditor, and someone who stood to loose significant property and monies because of the revolution, the revolutionaries were in no position at that time to pay back the loans to them, and to additionally by this land, which their own settlements had yet to truly encroach upon.

Much of what the Treaty of Paris is, is how the revolutionaries would incorporate and pay back the European and Roman owners and creditors for the lands and properties they were being allowed to forge a new national corporate entity on.

Also of course the outstanding loans against them, since most of them were levereged to the International Bankers at that point.

Yet it is important to note that the Pope himself crowned Napoleon Emperor of France, thus bestowing on him, the highest form of sovereign legitimacy any ruler could hope to obtain.

So regardless of the disposition and the plots in dealing with the vestiges of the Bourbon dynasty, at best, any legitimate heirs would have a claim for financial compensation from modern day France, since France was in fact finally paid in the Louisiana purchase for those lands.

Such heirs might be due compensation, but it would be a monetary one, from the State of France, or who ever inherited the wealth of the Napoleonic ventures after his exile.

That's my 2 cents. Interesting theory, and nice to see someone reading the Treaties and questioning things.

Star and Flag

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:49 PM
Reply to your reply;
First, Napoleon crowned himself Emporer of the French, not of France. Second. The Treaty of Paris of 1790 did create the soverign American People. Thirdly, after Napoleon lost in Russia, the Great Powers called him a usurper in 1815. Now, the evil Duke, who cast the deciding vote in the Directory, to execute his older brother, King Louis XIV, couldn't have signed off on Sect. of State, Monroe's paper work, if the real titular Louis XVIII, was indeed a healthy thirty year old, Louis Charles, Duke of Normandy.
This is the point of my sleuthing out what the recent DNA fingerprint of the pickled heart really means. As a case in point; after the armistace ending the Great War, the U.S. grabbed the Mauser Werke's patent on the spitser (secant ogive) bullet. Later, we had to fork over $200,000 in reparations to the aforesaid Mauser Werke, for this theft. If we had just said that their patent was just another way of describing 2, or 3 diameter bullet nose profiles which we had pioneered after the War between the States, some eighty years earlier, we would never have put our national foot in the Germans' night soil pot.
When POTUS James Madison sent James Monroe over to France in 1815, he did exactly the same 'foot in the pot' trick. It's just taken a lot longer for science to catch up with him. The Paris Press Corps is still running with the idea that Louis Charles, not an older twin brother of Louis Joseph is the donor of the 'Pickled Heart', now in the niche at St. Denis.
But is there also a "Da Vinci Chase" like search being secretly waged across Europe, even as I write this? The monarchist school of Nostradamus interpreters would say Oui', Oui'.
A group of online dowsers I am affiliated with, say; 'look to modern day Belgium, and even to the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S.A.'. Now it is really becoming a kind of Cinderella Story in reverse, with the feminine republics searching for the Prince's descendants. After 9-11, the Feds tracked down the descendants of Rob't E. Lee, and asked if they still harbored resentment against the U.S. Gov't. They were still worried about a 'palace coup', in which a fifth Gen. descendant of G. Washington, who was offered a crown, here, after the American Revolution, but refused it, as he didn't have any offspring of his own.
But the Custus Lees would have been pretty good stand in's. Now, if the usurper was really Jefferson, and his bribe, (bride?) than the Feds may well be advised, to look into his descendants also. Palace coups' are largely bloodless affairs, but with no princely lines, the U.S. could be in for a long drawn out A.C.W. II.

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 06:06 PM
reply to post by carpooler

Half true half false,

Portrait of Pope Pius VII
Auguste GarnerayProvenance - 1805

Pope Pius VII agreed to crown Napoléon because he had already gained concessions for the church in the Concordant of 1801, which reestablished Catholicism as the religion of France, and assumed that, as Emperor, Napoléon would further reward the church. This did not happen, and in July 1809, Napoléon’s officers arrested Pius VII when he refused to resign as Pope and Head of the Papal States.

The Pope was present at the ceremony and intended to do the Crowning and was in possesion of the Crown before Napoleon grabbed it from his hands and crowned himself.

Ultimately Napoleons troubles with the Vatican would lead to him dying an excrutiating death in exile of poison by arsenic.

One again though the big problem with your theory, is payment was rendered and payment accepted, and possesion happens to be 9/10th of the Law, a very powerful 9/10th when you have a reciept.

A lot would have to happen in first any heir of the Bourbon Kings establishing a legitimate claim to first the French Republic, and then Louisiana, where in all likelihood, at best any heir could hope for a financial compensation from the French Republic that sold the lands.

I do believe you are leaving a few ellements out of the picture.


posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:08 AM
Proto Traveler;
I'm leaving a whole bunch out of this. Ultimately, it's what the courts decide the treaty still means. With Indian treaties, the courts have followed Issac Steven's 'As long as the grass grows," ect. pretty close. So far, anyway, they feel the Nation's honour demands this approach. Nothing at all is going to happen until someone matches the DNA of the pickled heart, to another fraternal burial, later than the 1815, John Monroe's attempt at tying down the Napoleonic treaty of 1803. Then, and only then, will the knives come out. Real revolutionaries always go back to a time when they think things were still working, to set their 'new' regimes up. The dark ages were apparently caused by two major eruptions of Krakatoa, the first in 450AD, and the second, in 530AD. As Europe froze, North Africa bloomed, and the Saracen threat emerged. The monarchist school of Nostradamus, postulates a new invasion of Europe, by the same Saracens, and if these Icelandic volcanoes really cut loose, a few dozen years of no summers in Europe, and verdant growing seasons all across N. Africa, may just be what the doctor ordered. Then the great Republics fail, and the Monarchy returns. This all brings on a Chinese hegemony. All in all, it's fertile ground for dowsing groups to play with. Where I part company with Jean Charles de Fontbrune, is that no one is going to raise a mighty force right under the noses of the Islamic occupiers. So I believe in a solution bearing on the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S.. In a way the Feds already have tipped their hand after 9-11, with their interrogation of the descendants of Rob't E. Lee.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 06:54 PM
reply to post by Chakotay

Chako, I know all about Joseph, but by the Divine Rights of Kings, there was a legal possession by the Europeans. It's just that if there's a continuing question about whose or which Great White Father signed off on the aforesaid possession, then it may still have to be hashed out in the Courts. Having said that, "What goes around, does indeed come around". So now it's the Republic that may be in the cross hairs, pitted against the new science of DNA fingerprinting. I believe a perfectly healthy ten year old boy was spirited out of the prison, and replaced by his older surviving, but close to death, brother. This brother was a twin of Louis Joseph, and really was Louis XVII. Now at his death in the prison, it was the ten year old who became titular Louis XVIII, and not the Duke of Anjou, who signed off on the Louisiana Purchase, to James Monroe, after Napoleon's earlier deal with Madison was declared invalid, in 1815. This happened when Napoleon was denounced as a usurper, and then exiled off to the island of St. Helena, in the South Atlantic. We don't know the name of the real Louis XVII, but we know his birthdate, which is the same as his twin brother's, and we know the day of his death, which is recorded in the autopsy. So two out of three, ain't bad. Titular Louis XVIII, then reigns from that death date, to whenever the little ten year old passed on. This stretch of time runs up to the days of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, Az. in 1885, or 100 years after his birth in 1785. This was his century, and he just may have lived into the time of the birth of the Third Republic of France, circa 1873. This was supposed to be a stop gap gov't engineered by the victorious Prussians after the Franco Prussian War of 1870. The Prussians would have gleefully installed a very old Louis Charles as King, if they could only have found him still alive. So think what that would have done to our Westward migration in the last quarter of the Nineteenth Century. If the U.S. military had to backtrack to St. Louis, Mo., there may have never been a Battle of the Little Bighorn, nor a Nez Perce War of 1877-78, if the Indians had a second venue to legally oppose the Yankee land grabbers, and their voracious gold prospecting bretheren. And if the British did recognize him, also, then it would have been "Katie Bar the Door", out here in the American? West. In the short term, at least, Madison's and Monroe's mugs are nowhere to be seen on Mt. Rushmore.

top topics


log in